Actually discussing other drugs is also worthwhile. Nobody has every jumped off a high building trying to fly on Ecstasy unless they got an urge to shag a passing bird..... certainly can get really randy on that stuff.

Quote:Society is already "flooded" with drugs.

Moslty alcohol. And as you can see from the table, when something is readily available it becomes more of a problem. The data clearly shows this. I can assure you that if ellicit drugs are legalised, the numbers on that graph will increase, without a doubt.

That isn't what the data shows at all and you know it. The data is about the harm each drug causes, and for any comparison to be made, the data will have been normalised. The reason alcohol is so high is not because it is used more, but because it causes more harm to the individual, and the people around the individual.

By your reasoning, there are far more cocaine and heroin users than tobacco users, since their relative harm scores are much higher, and according to you, that goes up when it is more readily available. Tell me, which stores are selling heroin behind the counter these days?

You need to take a statistics 101 course and learn how to read data properly.

Right, ok. My point still stands though. I beleive alcohol is more harmful because it is readily available. If you make these other illicit drugs readily available, the problems associated with them will be componded as well.

You say education is the key, but I think most people are unable to control themselves even if they know the dangers.

(November 3, 2010 at 10:46 am)Tiberius Wrote: Nobody decides what I do with my body but me. Anything else is a form of slavery.

You're not a slave, but I'm telling you what to do with your body... Leave the collar on.

Leave it on, I said, and get back on your knees!



I'm heavily reminded of a particularly shitty but hilarious movie that Sylvester Stallone did called "Demolition Man."

Quote:According to Cocteau's plan, I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal?

Unfortunately I cannot smoke, thanks to a nasty bout of pneumonia. I haven't dabbled in most any other substance defined as a "drug", unless you count the love Lewis Black and I share for Nyquil. But I will tell you from personal experience: I'd rather deal with a pot head than an alcoholic, as I've never had anyone take a hit off the bong and then yell abuse in my face, which is more than I can say about the drinkers. But having a problem with certain people who drink too much doesn't mean everyone should suffer for it.

Temperance movements of all sorts began long before anyone had access to the kind of science we needed to tell why any of these drugs may or may not have been bad for you. The movements were emotionally based, largely comprised of women who didn't like getting beaten by their drunk husbands. Except not every drinker is abusive, nor is every drug user, and we shouldn't have these ridiculous laws imposed on us just because *some* of the population has a problem with it. We don't stop selling nuts just because a large number of kids are deathly allergic to them, after all.

I'm not a big fan of the decriminalization of drugs, though regulation is broad term. Personally I think that there are far worse crimes out there and the jails are over crowded and need to be cleared out. So, offenses over drugs, especially lighter drugs, should be dropped probably. It would unclog the justice system to allow bigger crimes to be processed more quickly. However, if they were decriminalized and a legal age was set with laws on how much you can have, etc, or something like that, that would be fine too. As long as it's not harming people in public its not a HUGE deal... So i'll be going back off to worry about the pedophile priests and non priests and the anti-homosexual bullying and the murders and things that matter more haha

As long as the government makes sure society functions smoothly and safely, i'm fine.

(November 5, 2010 at 9:52 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: Right, ok. My point still stands though. I beleive alcohol is more harmful because it is readily available.

The data in the study you unsuccessfully tried to use in defence of your previous statement says different though.

(November 5, 2010 at 9:52 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: If you make these other illicit drugs readily available, the problems associated with them will be componded as well..

But again the data, where drug laws have actually changed, in Portugal for example where all substances are decriminalised, user rates have fallen. Now I'm not saying that will 100% work everywhere, but the current system of zero tolerance most countries use clearly isn't working as user rates are constantly increasing. Can you not see that? It's pretty simple. Where the rest of the world has stuck with what it's done for a long time, user rates and the problems have increased. Where one country, Portugal, (and to a lesser extent Holland with cannabis.) have tried something new, user rates have fallen.

(November 5, 2010 at 7:40 am)ib.me.ub Wrote:

Quote:Like that, didn't you?

I did actually, thanks ;-).

@theVOID: From the same source;

Quote:Although LSD isn't physically addictive, regular users can become psychologically addicted. The fact that a trip can last for several hours and the individual will likely feel very tired after coming down means that the user may not be eating regularly or properly. A person who is tripping often may experience altered sleep patterns and neglect his or her personal hygiene.

As the psychological addiction progresses, the LSD user will likely neglect his or her personal relationships, too. The world they experience while under the influence of the drug becomes more interesting or perhaps less stressful than the reality of the user's "regular" life.

So, you probably should read past the first line.

Really though, how can flooding society with drugs be good thing.

You know that a psychological addiction is the same type of thing that people who are addicted to gambling have right? This essentially means that while LSD cannot cause an addiction, it is just like many other phenomenon in that a person can attach too much value to it, and that is not the fault of the chemical, but of a fundamental human problem that can manifest in almost any circumstance.

Are you for banning gambling because a small portion of gamblers take it too far? I doubt it, and if that is the case then by what reasons to you justify your double standard?

Oh, and the people who want to take drugs already take them, there is no 'flooding the street with drugs' that's a completel strawman. I'm not for promoting the use of drugs in anyone, i couldn't care less who shares my enjoyment of weed, this is about not persecuting these people who do take certain drugs when we are tollerant or in some cases even proud of people who take relatviely more dangerious risks in the name of recreation.

Also, the eating and sleep patterns are no different (or even better) than the results of a night on the booze.

If you think i'm saying LSD (or other drugs) are harmless then you are wrong, what I am saying is that relative to the dangers involved in a wide range of recreational activities (including drinking alcohol) these substances are really nothing to worry about.

If you are going to argue the line that making drugs socially acceptable is going to skyrocket their use then i suggest you look at Holland, they have legal weed in Cafe's and they don't persecute users, yet their drug use prpoprtionately is less than half of the rate of use in the USA, which is the western nation with the most heavily enforced drug policies.

Just like with the Alcohol prohibition, the most serious social problems related to drug use come from the criminal activity that is a direct result of prohibition of the substance in question and NOT with the people who use the substances.

(November 5, 2010 at 9:52 pm)ib.me.ub Wrote: I beleive alcohol is more harmful because it is readily available.

And I believe in swordfish. Prove your statement.

disprove it